Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

R v Kaipua [2019] SBHC 66; HCSI-CRC 295 of 2013 (6 September 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 295 of 2013

REGINA

V

ALLEN KAIPUA
Accused

Date of Sentence: 6 September 2019

Mr. A. Kelesi for the Crown
Mr. G Grey for the Accused

SENTENCE

1. The Defendant had been initially charged and convicted on 11 November 2014 of the offence of murder contrary to Section 200 of the Penal Code (Cap 26). Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted to this court for a retrial.
2. On 12 August 2019, the Director of Public Prosecution filed a nolle prosequi on the murder charge pursuant to Section 91 (4) (c) of the Constitution (Cap 1) and Section 68 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 7). On the same date, the Director also filed substituted information against the Defendant on a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 199 of the Penal Code (Cap 26).
3. On 13 August 2019, the court had consequently discharged the Defendant of the offence of murder and he was arraigned on the substituted information. A guilty plea was entered by the Defendant. The matter was then adjourned for sentencing submissions.
4. In mitigation, I take into account your early guilty plea on the substituted charge at an earliest opportunity. That shows remorse on your part and I am satisfied that you are sorry for what you have done. Your early plea also saves time and expense from convening a trial into the matter.
5. You are married with two children. You are the only breadwinner for the children and your wife. You are also responsible for your elderly mother subsequent to your father’s demise. I do not know whether you would be able to find employment again but your family responsibility remains.
6. You are 43 years of age. You have no previous convictions. You were a law abiding citizen until that fateful day when under the influence of alcohol, you have unlawfully caused the death of the deceased.
7. I have noted that you were provoked into the commission of the offence. Nonetheless, if no alcohol was involved, you would have controlled yourself and this offending would not have occurred. You were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
8. The incident that brought rise to this offending was supposed to have been a normal social gathering by friends and relatives that had gone terribly wrong because of the use and abuse of alcoholic drinks.
9. I also take into account the period that you have spent in pre-trial custody which is a term of 3 years, 1 month and 19 days.
10. Notwithstanding the above circumstances, the court does not condone such careless, negligent and ruthless behaviour that had taken away the life of another person. Your action on the night of the incident is deplored by this court.
11. I must also remind you that the offence of manslaughter is very serious and the courts shall not treat it lightly. The seriousness of this offence is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
12. Having perused submissions from counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence and having taken into account the aggravating and the mitigating factors peculiar to your case, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence that I shall impose on you is one of imprisonment. I hereby sentence you to 3 and 1/2 years imprisonment.

I direct that the Defendant be released at the rising of the court having served the period of the sentence in pre-trial custody.

Orders of the court

1. Convict the Defendant of the offence of manslaughter.
2. Impose sentence of 3 and 1/2 years.
3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody be deducted from the total sentence.
4. Further direct that he be released at the rising of the court having served the period of the sentence in pre-trial custody.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge